Shirt.Woot

DJTweekNYC wrote:This is clever.

I thought so too! And I'm a firm believer that investing in education and GOOD teachers will ensure the future success of our country.

KtCallista wrote:really? Our school superintendent wants to lay off 30% of the teachers and have high school students take at least 3 of their classes through online learning.

Yet the number of administrators, boards, and management always seems to go up...

When business is good and the economy is strong, nobody wants to be a teacher. When things are bad and an education is the key to a new career or getting a job- they're overpaid and need to go!

DJTweekNYC wrote:This is clever.

i realise the analysis is done tongue-in-cheek to lobby for more pay for teachers, but anyway: if you take the analysis humourlessly, at face value, it's not so clever. the $3/child/hour rate oughta apply to a babysitter with a far lower kid/caregiver ratio, often between 1 and 3 kids/sitter. a 30:1 kid/caregiver ratio presents far less value to the parent; if you take it as simply being 10 times less valuable (since your kid is getting at most only 1/10th the attention from a teacher that they would get from a sitter), then the argument could be made that a parent should pay 1/10th what a $3/hour sitter would get, and (working through the math) a teacher should be paid only $10,000 to $30,000 a year. is that what people really want?

(imho, the argument isn't any more contrived than the one given)

no1 wrote:i realise the analysis is done tongue-in-cheek to lobby for more pay for teachers, but anyway: if you take the analysis humourlessly, at face value, it's not so clever. the $3/child/hour rate oughta apply to a babysitter with a far lower kid/caregiver ratio, often between 1 and 3 kids/sitter. a 30:1 kid/caregiver ratio presents far less value to the parent; if you take it as simply being 10 times less valuable (since your kid is getting at most only 1/10th the attention from a teacher that they would get from a sitter), then the argument could be made that a parent should pay 1/10th what a $3/hour sitter would get, and (working through the math) a teacher should be paid only $10,000 to $30,000 a year. is that what people really want?

(imho, the argument isn't any more contrived than the one given)

meh - I took it for the tongue in cheek argument that it was. And found it a clever way to say that we need to value our teachers.

kdccrosby wrote:meh - I took it for the tongue in cheek argument that it was. And found it a clever way to say that we need to value our teachers.

i dunno. i think the moral of the story is, DON'T TIE TEACHUR VALUE TO BABYSITTERS. THE VALUE OF TEACHURZ IS FOR TEACHING, NOT BABYSITTING. take the babysitting argument to the limit and pretty soon you'll be firing trained experienced teachurz and replacing all of them with teenagers.

no1 wrote:i realise the analysis is done tongue-in-cheek to lobby for more pay for teachers, but anyway: if you take the analysis humourlessly, at face value, it's not so clever. the $3/child/hour rate oughta apply to a babysitter with a far lower kid/caregiver ratio, often between 1 and 3 kids/sitter. a 30:1 kid/caregiver ratio presents far less value to the parent; if you take it as simply being 10 times less valuable (since your kid is getting at most only 1/10th the attention from a teacher that they would get from a sitter), then the argument could be made that a parent should pay 1/10th what a $3/hour sitter would get, and (working through the math) a teacher should be paid only $10,000 to $30,000 a year. is that what people really want?

(imho, the argument isn't any more contrived than the one given)

Orc noticed this too. Yet, for daycare (which is preschool too so it's some educational activity) we pay $50 a day for half a day for 4 hours of teacher time. Because of teacher to student ratio requirements there are no more than 6 kids per teacher. Wanna do the math now? My daughter's kindergarten teacher (all day program) doesn't make that much per day for just watching my one daughter. Granted the daycare provides food and pays for all the craft supplies.

EWWWWWWWW!

1/4 of teachers are humans.
another 1/4 don't give a damn.
another 1/4 have given up hope.
And the remaining 1/4 are so f***ing crazy they actually think their is hope for the children.

FenStar wrote:EWWWWWWWW!

i lurvs pork rinds. shouldn't eat 'em, tho.

Well to be fair, there are a few pedophile teachers too.

no1 wrote:i lurvs pork rinds. shouldn't eat 'em, tho.

You shouldn't read freaky vampire fanfic either.

no1 wrote:i dunno. i think the moral of the story is, DON'T TIE TEACHUR VALUE TO BABYSITTERS. THE VALUE OF TEACHURZ IS FOR TEACHING, NOT BABYSITTING. take the babysitting argument to the limit and pretty soon you'll be firing trained experienced teachurz and replacing all of them with teenagers.

and their kidz will end all of their sentencez with zzz'z

kdccrosby wrote:and their kidz will end all of their sentencez with zzz'z

If people would stop having so god d*** many kidz, we wouldn't have to worry about paying so many teachers.

FenStar wrote:EWWWWWWWW!

I don't have a lot of interest in This either

dontwantaname wrote:With it, because of job security and good pay, benefits and vacation, people who really hate their job, stay.

And refuse to actually teach kids, opting instead to make their lives miserable, ignoring any special needs a child may have. Then they implement zero tolerance policies because the are too dumb and lazy to actually respond in an appropriate manner. Then people wonder why kids bring guns to school and shoot everyone up. You know how much of a horrible person they are when they make the biggest paranoid android in the school cry in the middle of class. I seem to be in a bad mood. I blame the crazy person we had speaking in class today. I get what we were supposed to get out of it*, unlike most of the class that just laughed at him, but still crazy people make me upset. I suppose it boils down to the things we hate the most in other people are our own flaws, but still.

*The class is a philosophy class, it has to do with our perception of the world and how it isn't "true". I suppose it is interesting, but not exactly anything anyone wouldn't already know, and it is mostly irony anyways.

on a more upbeat note here is some pretty music

I killed the thread. I am sorry.

dontwantaname wrote:Go post in Yammer.
Gman expects people to kill it.

Did you listen to the pretty music?

dontwantaname wrote:No, not yet.

Just click the link, it isn't that hard.

Ok, I'm going to bed. Everyone can come back.

Nite all.

I really dislike two-part shows.

I'm holding a sleeping baby

dontwantaname wrote:Awwwwww. That is a good thing.

Yes it is, but hard to type.

dontwantaname wrote:Oh fine, everyone went away and didn't tell me where.

See ya tomorrow.

I'm here, you weren't saying anything.

pooflady wrote:I'm here, you weren't saying anything.

I'm holding sleeping/nursing baby.

Night all. Tomorrow.

Good morning all.
This is all I intend to comment on the subject of teachers.
My former wife is a teacher.
My sister is a teacher My current wife was a teacher for over 20 years before moving into administration.Many of our friends are teachers. Therefore it can be said I have known many many teachers over the years. I can tell you the vast majority by far love what they are doing and care about the students. Teachers, like everyone else, are human and like every other work place there are about 5% (according to statistics I have seen) that choosing this profession wasn't the best choice.
So Fen, I don't know where you got your "statistics", but based on my experience they are flawed.

Good morning everybody! Librarians love teachers.